WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox, "I would say that the underlying thesis of our D&D business is all about digital,”

Was 1e really created with low expectations?
Almost certainly, at least relative to what its sales wound up being. D&D was doing very well in the niche hobby wargame market and as the market creator in the new RPG market (which also drew in a broader sci-fi and fantasy fan market), but when they were writing those books they couldn't know that the James Dallas Egbert III incident would make D&D national news in late '79 and it would turn into a cultural fad. The core books were published '77-'79 and the giant boom sales years were 1980 to 1983.

I'm also thinking of that interview with Gary when he mentioned that ascending AC made more sense and he thought about switching to that for AD&D, but decided it was too late. "Everyone" was already familiar with descending. He wasn't expecting the market to be so much bigger than the existing fanbase.

I don't know where everyone is from, but a cash-grab is usually described as a product solely, or primarily, designed with the purpose of bringing in an influx of cash quickly with little attention paid to quality or improving the customer experience. Obviously every product a company releases is done so with the expectation that it will generate revenue, some products are even redesigned in an effort to appeal to changing customer tastes and expectations, but that isn't what makes it a cash-grab.
This is a fair point. I think people are using the term in different senses. By your definition, for example, the original Unearthed Arcana was almost indisputably a cash grab. It's a bunch of Dragon Magazine articles and some new classes, rules, and spells that were barely or not at all playtested and of dubious balance (like the absurdly powerful Cavalier and Barbarian, or the practically-worthless Thief-Acrobat) and was rushed to production to give the company a desperately-needed cash infusion.

1E as a whole wasn't such a rushed-out product, although a major motivation in its development and publication was to try to cut Dave Arneson out of royalties, which is a purely monetary factor. Well, maybe not even purely monetary there. As Gary getting only his own name on the covers probably weighed in as well.

If one's definition of "cash grab" is just "primarily motivated by money", then yeah, one could argue that every single edition of D&D was that. Even OD&D, though their expectations for that were humble.

I can't really opine as to whether 1st edition AD&D was a cash-grab or not because I have no experince with earlier D&D products. The only edition I thought was a cash-grab was 3.5. The "improvements" they made were so incremental and did not necessitate a new or revised edition requiring me to purchase the core books all over again. And I'm saying that as someone who was excited about the announcement for 3.5 and ended up so disappointed with the product that I walked away from D&D again. As much as I disliked 4th edition, I don't consider that a cash-grab either. WotC was trying to respond to what they thought their customers wanted, but ended up falling flat on their faces.
I had a somewhat different experience with 3.5. I remember that the original pitch was minor tweaks, but that the eventual changes were sufficiently extensive that the books wound up largely incompatible with each other.

Although in general that period did feel kind of cash-grabby to me. The incredible number of hardcover books they were putting out became unappealing and impossible for me to keep up with. But I still got a LARGE number of them. Some of them, though, I really thought seemed pointless and unnecessary. At least for the games I was playing in.

And I think this was a not-insignificant factor in the pushback 4E got, that people had been buying a TON of books in the preceding four years if they wanted to keep up with 3.5, and the prospect of restarting the whole cycle was another factor (on top of GSL vs OGL, the bad 4E marketing insulting fans, the extensive overall revision and slaying of sacred cows, and the failure of Gleemax and vaporware of the promised 4E VTT) inclining a lot of fans to stick with 3.5 or hop over to Pathfinder instead of adopting 4E.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


As an aside: didn't WotC patent MtG's mechanisms? Or did the attempt fail?
Some were patented. But...those ran out. They have trademarks on several elements, but iteasy to make a workaround. Heck, Pokémon and YuGiOh worked around thebpayent in then90's to take over the market from WotC, now Disney doesn't even have the patent in the way and their trademarks and IP are big guns to bring to the table.
 

Some were patented. But...those ran out. They have trademarks on several elements, but iteasy to make a workaround. Heck, Pokémon and YuGiOh worked around thebpayent in then90's to take over the market from WotC, now Disney doesn't even have the patent in the way and their trademarks and IP are big guns to bring to the table.
Wasn't pokemon a WotC game? That's why Hasbro bought them, no?
 

I wonder how true that remains. i think it is undoubtable that there was time that CR was a major driver of new players to D&D, but is that still the case?
Not sure how we want to assign credit now. But I think it's fair to say that CR did 2 important things that the hobby benefits from to this day.

1. It showed how fun the game can be.
2. It broke a lot of the social stigma around playing D&D, that existed even within "nerd" communities.

At least that's how it was for me. I was a nerdy teenager and frequently had passing interest in playing the game, but picking up a rulebook never really conveyed the actual game experience. And the people I knew who played seemed to me, at the time, militantly uncool.

As with a lot of teenage judgements, it wasn't very fair and it didn't receive much in the way of internal review. So it persisted into adulthood. Then one day an episode of Tabletop (because board games were cool enough..of course) rolls into one of the early CR episodes and I hear anime people (anime also cool enough..of course) playing D&D. It was clear that they were having fun, and they mostly didn't present as being on the social ultra-fringe.

The fun they were having is what hooked me into wanting to play, and the broken social stigma made me feel like it was going to be possible to find people I would enjoy playing with. Playing the game with folks since has also led me to reconsider some 1990's teenage biases..and they haven't held up well.. but I'm not sure I would have ever played if CR hadn't come around. Perhaps that's just true for me though.
 






Remove ads

Top